§Why CasetextPricing

Lifebrite Laboratories, Llc v. Cooksey

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Appoint Custodian MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment And Declaratory Relief

34 Cited authorities

  1. Emory v. Peeler

    756 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 290 times
    Holding that there was no case or controversy for a declaratory judgment action regarding the defendant's past conduct because the plaintiff made "no factual allegation . . . that such conduct has continued or will be repeated in the future"

  2. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    274 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2001)   Cited 86 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when "loss" is not defined in an automobile insurance policy, diminished value is an element of an insured's "loss" and thus insurers must assess damaged property for diminished value

  3. HR Block Eastern Ent. v. Morris

    606 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 64 times
    Finding that even though plaintiff reported that latest date of discrimination was June 14, 2006, the plaintiff "last worked in Block's offices in April or May of 2005," making May 2005 the last date on which a discriminatory act could have occurred such that the 180-day window for filing a charge of discrimination began in May 2005

  4. McReynolds v. Krebs

    290 Ga. 850 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that § 51-12-32 "cannot trump the rules set forth in OCGA § 51-12-33 because it begins with the phrase, 'except as provided in Code Section 51-12-33'"

  5. Burns v. Dees

    252 Ga. App. 598 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 50 times
    Finding contract too indefinite to enforce where it did not state how costs or payments would be allocated, what the parties' responsibilities would be in the event of losses, or provide a formula how sale proceeds or profits would be calculated or how and when profits and proceeds would be distributed

  6. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Frisby

    163 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (N.D. Ga. 2001)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that "Morgan Stanley is estopped from seeking a restraining order against competitive conduct which it admits to engaging in"

  7. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

    250 Ga. 391 (Ga. 1982)   Cited 65 times
    Finding that “[t]he parties agreed to the language of the contract ... [but] it is clear that when the contract was executed the parties did not agree as to what they intended by this language”

  8. Jackson v. Ford

    252 Ga. App. 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that a promise which could not support breach of contract allegations was also too vague and indefinite to sustain a promissory estoppel claim

  9. Avion Sys., Inc. v. Bellomo

    338 Ga. App. 141 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 11 times

    A16A0060 07-14-2016 Avion Systems, Inc. v. Bellomo. Theodore H. Lackland, Atlanta, for Appellant. Mari L. Myer, for Appellee. McFadden, Judge. Theodore H. Lackland, Atlanta, for Appellant. Mari L. Myer, for Appellee. McFadden, Judge. This appeal challenges the grant of a motion for summary judgment as to a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to breach of contract and other claims. However, the appellant has failed to show that there

  10. Earthcam, Inc. v. Oxblue Corp.

    49 F. Supp. 3d 1210 (N.D. Ga. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    In EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp., 49 F.Supp.3d 1210 (N.D.Ga. 2014), aff'd, 703 Fed.Appx. 803 (11th Cir. 2017), the Court held on summary judgment that defendants who accessed the plaintiff's systems through an existing client's account with the client's permission and at the client's request did not violate the CFAA where the plaintiff had not established the client was prohibited from sharing its password with third parties.

  11. Section 13-6-11 - Recovery of expenses of litigation generally

    Ga. Code § 13-6-11   Cited 1,718 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Permitting recovery of attorney's fees against a party that “has acted in bad faith, has been stubbornly litigious, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and expense”

  12. Section 13-8-53 - Enforcement of covenants; writing requirement; determining competitive status; effect of failure to comply; time and geographic limitations

    Ga. Code § 13-8-53   Cited 52 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Noting non-compete covenants may apply to employees who regularly solicit customers, engage in sales, perform the duties of a key employee, or have the duty of managing a department and regularly direct the work of employees and have the authority to hire or fire them

  13. Section 13-6-8 - Damages and expenses recoverable - Remote or consequential damages

    Ga. Code § 13-6-8   Cited 39 times

    Remote or consequential damages are not recoverable unless they can be traced solely to the breach of the contract or unless they are capable of exact computation, such as the profits which are the immediate fruit of the contract, and are independent of any collateral enterprise entered into in contemplation of the contract. OCGA § 13-6-8

  14. Section 13-8-51 - Definitions

    Ga. Code § 13-8-51   Cited 16 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[l]egitimate business interest" to include "ubstantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, vendors, or clients"

  15. Section 13-8-58 - Enforcement by third parties

    Ga. Code § 13-8-58   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) A court shall not refuse to enforce a restrictive covenant on the ground that the person seeking enforcement is a third-party beneficiary of such contract or is an assignee or successor to a party to such contract. (b) In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, it is not a defense that the person seeking enforcement no longer continues in business in the scope of the prohibited activities that is the subject of the action to enforce the restrictive covenant if such discontinuance